Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <JhZbi.6122$K8.4135@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1206072015450001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <cvdu63l6rvv5sadoco7rih3bt3vjejschk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:06:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article > >> ><DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >> >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article > >> >> <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." > >> >> > >> >> If that were the case, reliable corroborating evidence would be > >> >> plentiful. > >> >> > >> >> You, being so determined to demonstrate the veracity of this little > >> >> story, should be able to provide same. > >> >> > >> >> You cannot; ergo, there's no reason to believe you. > >> > > >> >Several have told me they would not believe that she was healed by > >> >God--regardless of the physical evidence. So--why should I waste my time > >> >finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so > >> >I > >> >don't need to find physical evidence. > >> > >> Once again, you are lying to us. We will accept evidence that she was as > >> severely impaired as you say and that she was healed. We will not accept > >> your unsubstantiated assertion that this healing, if it happened, came > >> from God. > >> > >> You need to provide evidence of the healing AND you need to provide > >> evidence that the healing came from God. You haven't made the slightest > >> attempt to provide such evidence. Why not? Is it because you know that > >> you have absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it? > > > > I understand your point. No, I can not produce a video tape showing God > > coming down from heaven and healing her leg. It appears that is the sort > > of evidence that you are looking for---Sorry--I was wrong--you would > > probably say that was not good enough since those evil Christians hired an > > actor to play the role of God. > > Tell you what Jason, you produce the tape and we'll let you know if it is > real :-). Once more, with gusto, extraordinary claims require extraordinary > evidence!! Sorry--Neither Cheryl or I have such a tape. If you choose to believe that Cheryl is lying--there is nothing I can do about it. I believe her. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g5i9@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >It's > >difficult not to think about sex when a young beautiful girl wearing a > >bathing suit walks in front of me. > > Could you elaborate on that? No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or swimming pool in recent years? Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:38:29 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Are you actually interested in the answers, or will it be like the rest >> of your questions, an attempt to deflect from the fact that you believe >> a bunch of religious lies and refuse to look at physical evidence? > > I will read your answers. There is a difference between simply reading them and in understanding and dealing with them - by refuting them, accepting they refute you core arguments and so forth. Now, which will you do - deal with them? Or just read them? -- "Faith" means not wanting to know what is true. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:33:08 -0700, Jason wrote: >> The vast majority belong to denominations that do accept the discoveries >> about evolution, including the fact that mankind shares a common >> ancestry with other life on earth. >> >> You reject that fact, but the fact won't change just because you don't >> like it. > > I have pointed out that only about 12 percent of the people believe that. No, you posted a poll that says 12 percent of Americans believe it. However, Americans only make up about 6% of the world's population, so even if 100% believed anything, they'd probably still be in the minority. -- Then Hector, after I stuff it, would you please kiss my Holy, royal red American, Christian ass? Then I will do like Jesus said, I will turn the other cheek so you can kiss it to, you pompous little geek. - Johnny Mckinney Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:04:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206072004470001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <nocu63t7m5lckkpctjabhghvrbj10nrdap@4ax.com>, John Baker ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <598u63h6roisvahm7r403qevrl451fr95v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:24:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1206071024300001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> snip >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Martin, >> >> >> > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone >grew 2 >> >> >> > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your >god exists >> >> >> and does anything. >> >> > >> >> >That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. >> >> > >> >> Because you know that you cannot provide any evidence that your God >> >> exists. >> >> >> >> Despite that, you reject actual evidence. Why? Who taught you to be so >> >> dishonest? >> > >> >I do not reject all evidence. You reject evidence (testimony) that >> >Cheryl's leg bone grew 2 inches. >> >> This isn't evidence. It's a claim, made by you, that you have thus far >> not supported. You've lied about so many other things, I think it's >> safe to assume you're most probably lying about this as well. > >Would you like for me to post her testimony again. She stated that she >watched her leg bone grow two inches? You've made a claim about what she said. You did not post any testimony. Learn to use words properly. .... -- "... There's glory for you." "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all." Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <1181770322.819000.215860@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 jun, 21:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181759527.190743.38...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > > > > > > > > > > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 jun, 00:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1181683568.769547.221...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12 jun, 15:20, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > On 12 Jun., 08:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But the parents are not responsible for the behavior of an adult > > > > > > > > competent child. They may regret have given birth to that > > child, but > > > > > > > > they are not legally responsible for his actions after attaining > > > > > > > > majority. They may have raised him in a way that led him to > > commit his > > > > > > > > crimes, but that is a psychological issue rather than a legal > > one. It > > > > > > > > might be a moral issue, depending on how they raised him. > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > cactus, > > > > > > > My point was that God is like the parents. > > > > > > > > What utter nonsense! The parents are not all-powerful. They cannot > > > > > > possibly be responsible for everything the child does. > > > > > > > > In much the same way the > > > > > > > > > parents were indirectly responsible for the murder since the > > murder would > > > > > > > not have happened if the son had never been born--God is indirectly > > > > > > > responsible for evil, since evil would never have happened if > > God had not > > > > > > > created the solar system and life. > > > > > > > > Your analogy is transparently invalid. > > > > > > > If parents would had the ability to change for the better the behavior > > > > > of his son, he would surely do it. We want that he would be free, but > > > > > free to drive a reasonable life. We, as parents, do no want our kids > > > > > to fall into a pool of shit. > > > > > But, sometimes, we are too busy or we are not enough vlever, and our > > > > > kids began to show bad a attitude, and we do not know how to change or > > > > > reverse this. > > > > > If we were like gods, our kids would have freedom to behave in a nice > > > > > manner and to keep out of trouble. But we are not gods. > > > > > So, go is a very bad parent. And this analogy posited by Jason is not > > > > > valid. > > > > > If there is a god, he would surely change all that. And this is one > > > > > of the proves that there is not any god. > > > > > Bramble > > > > > > God could have created robots that were programmed by God to do only kind > > > > and wonderful things and never do bad things such as murder. Instead of > > > > creating programmed robots, God created people that had free will. People > > > > will eventually be judged by God in relation to how they used their free > > > > will. Did they love God or turn their backs on God? Did they violate God's > > > > commandments or follow the commandments? Did they love or hate? Did they > > > > do good or evil? etc. > > > > Jason > > > > > Hi, Jason, my dear. > > > I am glad to hear you saying fooly things. > > > There is not any need for a god to create robots. > > > By example, "god" put limits to our capacity and abilities, isn't > > > it? > > > By example, we cannot feed ourselves by grazing like cows. We cannot > > > swim or go fishing like we were dolphins, we cannot fly like the > > > albatross or the geese for thousand of miles, and so on. > > > So, these animals are not robots. > > > > > I told you in another post, that you are unable to do certain things. > > > There is something inside your mind that make you unable to do it, or > > > even wish it. Isn't so? > > > In general, I suppose you are not molesting kids, > > > you are not a serial killer, > > > you are not holding up banks, > > > you are probably not betting casinos in Las Vegas, > > > you are not fornicating with other men, > > > and so on. > > > Now, here comes out the question. > > > > > Do you think that you are behaving like you were a robot? > > > If your god were a good father, as religious people like to posit, > > > He would had made us incapable of doing bad things. > > > All we could have been able to do, were to behave correctly, as most > > > of the people do. > > > By behaving correctly, I am not testing positive of being a robot. > > > Are you a robot, Jason? Must of us are not robots. Our behavior is > > > unpredictable to a certain point. We cannot be 100% sure, what will > > > be our next movement. So we are not robots. > > > Religious people speak about "temptations". They must be mild, those > > > temptations, Jason. Sometimes, we like a little bit the wife of our > > > neighbor, but most of us do not need to fight the urge of gropping her > > > bottocks. > > > Perhaps, we feel a little envy, for someone who earn a lot of money. > > > But our sins rarely go farther than that. > > > So, the people who behave properly, and had not any sort of > > > temptation, I grave or serious temptations, can be called "robotic"? > > > Do you think, that any ordinary folk, can be called robotic, because > > > they have not serious or "punishable by prision" wishes? > > > You have to find a different argument, dear Jason. > > > This one is not good. > > > Bramble > > > > Bramble, > > You are discussing free will. No, I do not believe I am behaving like I > > was a robot. You may have read about a famous television evangelist named > > Jimmy Swaggart. He played the role of an excellent Christian but enjoyed > > having sex with prostitutes. Some of the prostitutes told their stories to > > the reporters from a gossip magazine. If he had been like a robot, he > > would not have had sex with prostitutes. We have to deal with all sorts of > > temptations. We usually do not sin but in some cases we do sin. It's > > difficult not to think about sex when a young beautiful girl wearing a > > bathing suit walks in front of me. Needless to say, humans are not > > anything like robots. All people have free will. > > jason > > > Reverend Swaggart was having sex with male prostitutes because he had > a prowerful drive to do it. He was forced to do it. Every normal > person has not this compulsions. But some people have them. > If he were not feeling a powerful compulsion to do that, he would not > had been thrown into this mess. > So, this is not a prove of the existence of free will. It is only the > prove that some people is hiding their forbidden impulses. > Just think for a moment of Saudi Arabia. There, sodomites are > beheaded. Every year, a number of sodomites are beheaded in the > public place. In Iran they are hanged in public. And in our not so > distant Christian past, they were put in prison. A little farther in > time, Christians were hunging them, and some centuries ago, the loving > Christian were burning them in public fires. Even if Jesus himself > saiys not any word about this in the NT. Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could have had her stoned to death--he did not do it. > How would these sodomites would dare to risk their lives, if were not > driven by a compulsive force? > Any normal person is very unlikely to be caught in these nefarous > activities. Or perhaps, are you assuming that everybody have has > sodomitic tendencies? That everybody is tempted with the wish of > copulating with a person of his own sex? Perhaps many priests are in > this case, as proved by the news. But the rest? Are most ordinary > males driven for the lust of other men? > > So, if you have not any wish whatever to do such an act, you cannot > have a free will. You will never desire to act this way. You are > limited. You cannot act against your own nature. So you have not > free will. > > So, to my mind, Swagger was only carried by his own powerful secret > desires. > Most people is honest, to a certain point. They never do any > shoplifting. Why? They not feel this compulsion to do it. > How hard is to fight hidden and powerful impulses? I don't know. > Each case can be different. > Bramble Bramble, Yes, some people have compulsions and other people do not have those same compulsions. Some people that have compulsions are able to over-rule themselves and not act on their compulsions. For example, you may want to have sex with your neighbor's wife but you do NOT visit her unless her husband is home. The reason: You are afraid that you may end up having sex with her if you get the opportunity. It's free will. jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:53:29 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206071953300001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1k8u63p8g5ekm82c78psrvmlh24v5qbs6t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071207530001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> >> > You want to try again. I'll find 10 or 20 more questions for you.- >Skjul = >> >> tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> >> Yes, we all know that you are not capable of being embarrassed by your >> >> dishonesty. It is odd that you are proud of it though. >> > >> > >> >Questions for Evolutionists >> > >> >BlueBar >> > >> > >> > 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? >> >> That question shows a profound lack of understanding of cosmological >> origins. > >not an answer--try again. Why would I bother to answer a question that contains a false understanding of the universe? The universe made its own space, it didn't come from anywhere. >> > 2. Where did matter come from? >> >> It's a form of energy and is a result of the Big Bang. >good answer--but where did the energy re: Big Bang come from? An infinite regress of mindless questions. If you don't like that answer, then consider the very strong possibility that the net energy of the universe is zero. >> > 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? >> >> Like the first question, the question betrays be a misunderstanding of >> physics so deep that it would be impossible to clarify it. >not an answer I cannot answer questions that are total nonsense. I have the choice of guessing what you mean or just ignoring the question until you offer one that makes sense. The universe behaves as it does. We observe that behavior. There is no reason to think that the behavior of the universe came from somewhere. >> > 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? >> >> You assume a fact not in evidence. Where did you get the idea that >> matter is (perfectly) organized. >good answer. >> >> > 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? >> >> Like the first question, the question betrays be a misunderstanding of >> physics so deep that it would be impossible to clarify it. Energy and >> matter are the same. > >> >> > 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? >> >> 3.5 to 4 billion years ago on earth, almost certainly on other planets >> as well. It happened because it was a natural result of the environment >> in which the chemical reactions were taking place. We don't know the >> details how, yet, but we know there are a number of valid possible >> paths. The matter wasn't dead. > >You answer is based on speculation That's what the evidence shows us. Stop trying to dismiss evidence as speculation when you don't like the results. >> > 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? >> >> Learn? What a strange characterization. Life never learned to reproduce >> itself, it happened as a result of biochemical reactions. > >Speculation--do you have evidence? Learning has a meaning that you are misusing. >> > 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? >> >> You are also misinformed about sexual reproduction. For what it's worth, >> there are still a huge number of organisms that swap genetic material >> even though they don't really reproduce sexually and there are a fair >> number of complex organisms that can reproduce sexually or not. > >I did not write the questions--it's my guess the question was related to >life forms that reproduce as a result of males and females having sex. >With that in mind, try again. Too bad you aren't competent to judge whether you should bother to repeat these question. You posted them, you should take responsibility for how bad they are. Did they come from the liars at the ICR? >> > 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind >> >since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of >> >survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? >> >How do you explain this?) >> >> It's how life works. Don't try to impute motive when there is none. >> >> > 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any >> >new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce >> >Chinese books.) >> >> Mutations are not recombining of the genetic code. Once again, you ask a >> defective question. >> >> > 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different >> >animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? >> >> If there were any evidence that there were a creator, common descent >> would not be in conflict with that idea, but there is no evidence for a >> creator so the question is meaningless. >> >> > 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information >> >available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain >> >the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if >> >evolution were true? >> >> Your misunderstanding of genetics. First, the complexity of the observed >> chromosomes of any organism is not particularly correlated with the >> apparent complexity of the organism itself. Second, almost all organisms >> have huge amounts of noncoding strands of DNA which can be used by other >> organisms. Third, viruses have found there way into chromosomes and >> remained there. > >good answer >> >> > 13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become >> >multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) >> >> There are many such forms of simple associated cell organisms: >> cell-colonies and diplococcus are two such examples. >> >> >b) Single-celled animals evolve? >> >> Please tell us what you mean by a single-celled animal. >> >> >c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians >> >change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, >> >reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are >> >all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live? >> >> <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> is easy enough to understand for >> someone who wants to learn. >> >> > 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea >> >horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, >> >skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? >> >> <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> is easy enough to understand for >> someone who wants to learn. >> >> > 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the >> >others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, >> >the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <6bv07390vhq91jq4nvov8p65b3sua2t96t@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g5i9@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >It's > >> >difficult not to think about sex when a young beautiful girl wearing a > >> >bathing suit walks in front of me. > >> > >> Could you elaborate on that? > > > >No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old > >days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or > >swimming pool in recent years? > > I swam with the stingrays at Grand Cayman Island in February. There > were women in bikinis, but they were not foremost in my mind. ;-) I did not have to deal with stingrays so my eyes wondered. I live near a beach and no longer visit it. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:59:48 -0700, Jason wrote: > or speculation based on a mathematical model. I note you failed to deal with my question about time and entropy. Wonder why that is? I note you also failed to provide _any_ actual meaningful definition of time which would allow your "before the big bang" to hold water - wonder why? One might point out here that the model you found, if verified, still doesn't deal with those issues, as it ends up switching universes, and we define time in terms of _this_ universe, so it doesn't really help you much. I note you also seem to have failed to acknowledge, beyond "thanks for the post", those who answered your list of questions. I also note you seem to be running away from the very people who keep pestering you to provide evidence; is this your tacit way of admitting you have none? What I don't note is you growing the balls to man up and just admit you're full of crap, to the point of outright lies and admiring of known liars. Glad I'm not a Christian like you - I'd have to give up all my morals. -- Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that >> >>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even this >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being who, >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match this >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." >> >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> > >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god? >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate as your >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. > >The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are evidence that >there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal >everyone that needed to be healed. You dishonestly added "by God" after healed, since you _know_ that you have no evidence at all that God had anything to do with it. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:12:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1306071312570001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181756794.512040.211180@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 13 Jun., 00:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <opc3k4-7or....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > [snips] >> > >> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > >> > > > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated th= >> at >> > > > her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? >> > >> > > Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even th= >> is >> > > much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> > >> > > "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being w= >> ho, >> > > of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match th= >> is >> > > particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically >> > > without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." >> > >> > > You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> > >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in.- Skjul tekst i an= >> f=F8r >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> You have already agreed in a response to one of my posts that being >> healed is not evidence that god did the healing. You have no evidence >> that anybody was healed by god only that they have claimed it. > >I understand your point. I do believe that a testimony is evidence. The >members of a jury can decide which testimonies to believe. Those same jury >members can decide which testimonies to not believe. The testimony of >Chery Prewitt can be believed by some people (esp. Christians). On the >other hand, her testimony is not believed by other people (esp. atheists). > Cheryl had absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it. You refuse to acknowledge your intentional and repeated dishonesty. Does God really deserve your lies? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:06:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206072106570001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0ks1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:09:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071509130001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <31d3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous >infidel you >> >> >> are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with >> >> >> their actions. >> >> > >> >> > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the >actions >> >> > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. >> >> >> >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is invalidated >> >> simply by where they live . >> > >> >I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in America. >> >Millions of people in other countries also realize that the actions of >> >those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. >> >> So you say. Apparently you never read the Old Testament. Jehovah was a >> pretty bloodthirsty tyrant. He might love the murders of 9/11 and the >> wars that happened afterward. >> >> >What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11? >> >> They are evil. But I don't have to defend the evil acts that people do >> in the name of God. >> >> Remember, they worship the same God you do. > >They worship a God named Allah. There were some people in the Bible that >worshipped a false God named Baal. Judges 2:13. I consider Allah to be a >false God. I already know people will diagree with me. >jason > Your ignorance of comparative religion is noted. Jews, Christians, Moslems, and Bahai all worship the same god. The word for God in Arabic is Allah. It is exactly the same name that Christian Arabs use when they pray to God. You are remarkably proud of your ignorance. Why do you think your god will be proud of you or even tolerate you? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin .... >> > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and mankind but >> > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". >> >> > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many names of God. >> >> In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which means "gods", in >> plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the daughters >> of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives... ,") >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim >> >> Martin > >This is in reference to the intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites. >The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites were devoted and >consecrated to God. God became very upset with the Sethites for taking >Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to only marry Sethite >women. > >I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my study Bible. >Jason > The authors of your study bible note were making it up. They have no evidence at all that their claim is correct. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:13:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206072113580001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <kgdu631ao4u245o7l0ekrvdt9kjvekggme@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:31:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071131590001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1181649634.232900.8560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1181614412.939840.97...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 12, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > >> >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > > > <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > >> >> > > > > ... >> >> > > > > >Bramble, >> >> > > > > >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created >> >mankind, he >> >> > > > > >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were >> >programmed to do >> >> > > > > >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide >> >to do great >> >> > > > > >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to >commit >> >> > > > > >criminal acts. >> >> > >> >> > > > > >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar >system and >> >> > > > > >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in >> >prison >> >> > > > > >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was >> >> > exercising his >> >> > > > > >or her free will. >> >> > >> >> > > > > >Do you see my point? >> >> > >> >> > > > > Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the >> >evidence shows >> >> > > > > us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to >accept that >> >> > > > > fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. >You call >> >> > > > > your God a liar. >> >> > >> >> > > > > Why? >> >> > >> >> > > > The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God >> >> > >> >> > > You keep talking about your imaginary friend as if he were real. You >> >> > > need to be commited for psychiatric observation. >> >> >> >> > They will have to build a lot of mental hospitals. According to the 2005 >> >> > Time Almanac, there are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. (page 359). >> >> >> >> Yes, the rational people of the world have a lot of work to do. You >> >> don't think we know that? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Martin, >> >They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist >> >countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? >> >> You are a humorless fool. >> >> >A Christian in Viet Nam was recently murdered by prison guards. >> >> Christianity, Buddhism and other religions are tolerated in Vietnam. >> Many in Vietnam are both Catholic and Buddhist, so the murder, if it >> happened, wasn't motivated merely because the prisoner was a Christian. > >He was placed in prison because he was the preacher in an underground or >secret church. They have official churches where they can easily keep >track of the Christians. They don't want millions of people attending >secret churches so they place the preachers in prison. > So you claim, but I've learned that your claims are not reliable. I would be a total fool to accept something that you tell me without any evidence or reference. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:27 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206072344280001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181708463.149330.322620@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 13, 12:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181691015.300853.260...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 13, 2:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > > They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist >> > > > countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? >> > >> > > No, there's probably some medication you could take. >> > >> > --or perhaps some medication for the people that believe their oldest >> > known ancestor is bacteria. --just kidding >> >> I don't believe you. I think you are serious. I know I was. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Perhaps, >some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem to >get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. It's my >opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more of >a religion than as a theory. However, there are other advocates of >evolution that realize that it is a theory and that they would turn their >back on evolution and/or the Big Bang if scientists developed even better >theories. >Jason > You are the one who tells lies. Why shouldn't we get upset when you lie and defame people we respect? Who gave you the right to lie? Who gave you the right to defame? We all know that God didn't tell you to do that, so that excuse won't fly. Grow up. Learn to act like a civil human being. Stop making excuses for your lies. Stop blaming God for the hate you spew. You are one of the minions of evil and you will not change until you repent of the false teachings that you try to spread here. Repent. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:15:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206072015450001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <cvdu63l6rvv5sadoco7rih3bt3vjejschk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:06:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article >> ><DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> > >> >> In article >> >> <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." >> >> >> >> If that were the case, reliable corroborating evidence would be >> >> plentiful. >> >> >> >> You, being so determined to demonstrate the veracity of this little >> >> story, should be able to provide same. >> >> >> >> You cannot; ergo, there's no reason to believe you. >> > >> >Several have told me they would not believe that she was healed by >> >God--regardless of the physical evidence. So--why should I waste my time >> >finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so I >> >don't need to find physical evidence. >> >> Once again, you are lying to us. We will accept evidence that she was as >> severely impaired as you say and that she was healed. We will not accept >> your unsubstantiated assertion that this healing, if it happened, came >> from God. >> >> You need to provide evidence of the healing AND you need to provide >> evidence that the healing came from God. You haven't made the slightest >> attempt to provide such evidence. Why not? Is it because you know that >> you have absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it? > >I understand your point. No, I can not produce a video tape showing God >coming down from heaven and healing her leg. It appears that is the sort >of evidence that you are looking for---Sorry--I was wrong--you would >probably say that was not good enough since those evil Christians hired an >actor to play the role of God. > No, you are lying, again. You are refusing to understand the point. You exaggerate it to make it quite clear that you have decided to ignore what I said. You are a liar and a defamer. You are hateful. There is no reason in the world that I should accept your claim that you are a Christian. All of your behavior tells me that you are not Christian in any sense. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:11:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1206072011040001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181690674.590547.210390@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 13, 1:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181646992.799917.21...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > On 12 Jun., 02:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <1181601347.999940.35...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > > In article >> > > > > > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> > >> > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > > > She has >> > > > > > > witnessed to thousands of people. >> > >> > > > > Wow. She's lied to a lot of people then. I find that completely and >> > > > > utterly morally reprehensible. It is also typical Godbot behaviour. >> > >> > > > > Martin >> > >> > > > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." >> > >> > > For which you have absolutely no objective evidence. You have even >> > > pretty well made it clear that you believe it because you want to. If >> > > one is a rational being, objective evidence is something that has to >> > > be accepted, whether we like what it supports or not; but you believe >> > > because you want to and, supposedly, reject evidence that does not >> > > support what you like. This makes you irrational and dishonest. >> > >> > Do you have objective evidence that time and physics did not exist prior >> > to the Big Bang? >> > >> > Do you have objective evidence that these are two of the steps involved in >> > the evolution of mankind: >> > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). >> >> Are you implying that we don't? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis >> >> Martin > >Martin, >It is based on speculation. I have been told by two people (yourself >included) that scientists have not conducted an experiment which had a >result that showed that a single cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a >single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproductin). > >I realize that scientists believe it happened millions of years ago. If it >happened naturally millions of years ago, scientists should be able to >make it happen again in a well designed experiment. > So now you misuse the word speculation. Based on your prior behavior, it was a completely intentional attempt to defame scientists. You are an evil man. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:27:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1306070027120001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181709266.371667.313590@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 13, 12:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181699847.672385.230...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 13, 8:33 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:50:33 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > > Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> > > > <1181613033.399853.282...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >> > >> > > > >On Jun 12, 7:48 am, Matt Silberstein >> > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > >> And, yet, you know that when Christians pray and things happen it is >> > > > >> because they pray. But somehow when Muslims pray and things happen it >> > > > >> is not because God did it. >> > >> > > > >Not Yahweh anyway. >> > >> > > > Of course it is. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai all agree that >> > > > they worship the same God, the God of Abraham. Sure, they all tell >> > > > different stories and claim the others are wrong, but they're all pretty >> > > > clear that they worship the same God. >> > >> > > > If there is a God, it appears that He enjoys the confusion, because He's >> > > > made no effort to clear it up. >> > >> > > Genesis 1 talks of the Elohim. It is Genesis 2 that speaks of >> > > Yahweh. According to Exodus, Yahweh insisted that he be worshipped >> > > ahead of "other gods". >> >> > They are different names for God. >> >> They are different gods. I >> read on wikipedia some speculation that Yahweh is >> based on the Sumerian god Ea / Enki. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahu >> >> "According to some, Yam was also called Ya'a or Yaw. >> Damaged text in KTU 1.2 iv has been interpreted by >> Mark S. Smith as describing a renaming of Yam from an >> original name Yaw. The resemblance of the latter to >> the Tetragrammaton YHWH led to speculation over a >> possible connection between Yam and God of the Hebrew >> Bible. However even if the reading is correct many >> scholars argue the names have different roots and >> reject the idea that they are related. Another >> suggested reading of the name is Ya'a and it has also >> been suggested as an early form of the divine name >> Yah, Yahu. Earlier archaeologists like Theophilus G. >> Pinches[1] quoted the research of Hommel, Professor of >> Semitic languages at Munich, who suggested "that this >> god Ya is another form of the name Ea...". By this >> theory Ya'a thus appears to have been a God of the >> waters, both salt (Yam) and fresh (Nahar), in some >> ways similar to the Mesopotamian God Ea.[2] This view >> has been supported in more recent times by >> archaeologists like Jean Bottero[3] and others,[4] >> although this is disputed by other scholars.[5][6]" >> >> In Sumerian mythology, Enki was the creator of >> mankind. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki >> >> "In Sumerian myth, Enki lay asleep in the depths of >> the primeval ocean, unable to hear the lament of the >> gods as they complained about the difficulty of >> cultivating wheat and making bread. Eventually the >> primeval sea, Nammu brought the gods' tears to Enki. >> Enki, as the god of wisdom, was expected to devise a >> solution, so he solicited Nammu and the birth-goddess >> Ninmah to use clay to form the first men, who would >> toil and farm so that the gods could relax. [7] >> >> [...] >> >> "Another myth, "Enki and Adapa", tells of how humanity >> loses the chance at immortality. Adapa U-an (Berossus' >> Oannes), who is Abgallu (Ab = Water, Gal = Great, Lu = >> Man) (Akkadian Apkallu), Enki's advisor, to the first >> king of Eridu, Allulim, inadvertently breaks the wings >> of the South Wind, Ninlil (See Lilith) (Nin = Lady, >> Lil = Air), daughter of Anu (the Heavens) and wife to >> Enlil, king of the gods. In terror at the thought of >> their retribution, Adapa seeks the advice of Enki. >> Enki advises that Adapa make a deep and sincere >> atonement, but advises Adapa to eat nothing given to >> him by the gods, as he will probably be given the food >> of death, out of their anger at his deeds. Adapa takes >> Enki's advice, but the gods, so impressed by the >> sincerity of Adapa's sorrow and grief as to what he >> did, offered instead the fruit of immortality. Adapa >> remembering Enki's words, refuses, and so misses out >> on the chance of eternal life." >> >> So Enki created man and one of his creations was named >> Adapa and Adapa angered the gods and ended up losing >> his chance at eternal life. >> >> So who is Satan? "Satan" is a Hebrew word meaning >> "adversary". >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan >> >> So who was the adversary of Yam? The adversary of Yam >> was Baal ("Lord") Hadad. >> >> "Of all the gods, Yam holds special hostility against >> Baal Hadad over the divine assembly. Yam is a deity of >> the sea and his palace is in the abyss associated with >> the depths, or Biblical tehwom, of the oceans. (This >> is not to be confused with the abode of Mot, the ruler >> of the netherworlds.) In Ugaritic texts, Yam's special >> enemy Hadad is also known as the "king of heaven" and >> the "first born son" of El, whom ancient Greeks >> identified with their god Kronos, just as Baal was >> identified with Zeus, Yam with Poseidon and Mot with >> Hades. Yam wished to become the Lord god in his place. >> In turns the two beings kill each other, yet Hadad is >> resurrected and Yam also returns. Some authors have >> suggested that these tales reflect the experience of >> seasonal cycles in the Levant." >> >> Thus, we can see that Yahweh can be associated with >> both the Sumerian god Enki and the Greek god Poseidon >> while Hadad can be associated not only with the Greek >> god Zeus (and the Roman god Jupiter) but also the >> Akkadian god Adad, the Anatolian god Teshub, the >> Egyptian god Set and the Sumerian god Ishkur. In >> Sumerian mythology, Ishkur was sometimes refered to as >> the son of Anu and brother of Enki and sometimes >> refered to as the brother of Ishtar and a descendent >> of both Enki and his brother Enlil. (See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adad ) >> >> That Ishkur was referred to as the son of Anu may be a >> mistake based on the fact that he was considered one >> of the Anunnaku, the race of beings descended from Anu >> collectively known as the sons of Anu. (See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu ) >> >> It is worth pointing out at this point that Anu was >> known to the Hebrews as El (See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El ) and that the Annuaki >> correspond to the Hebrew Elohim (See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim). The Islamic >> name Allah is believed to be derived from the name El. >> (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah ). >> >> Historically then El (the creator of the universe) >> and Yahweh (the creator of mankind) were not the same >> god. Judeo-Christian tradition combines the two gods >> into one. It would appear as though Genesis chapter >> one originally spoke about El and Genesis chapter two >> originally spoke about Yahweh. > >In what Bible verse is El mentioned? > Doesn't your study Bible address those inconsistencies? You should demand your money back from folks who don't even deal with something that basic. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:28:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1306071628360001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181768484.517548.156770@e26g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, >bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 13 jun, 21:26, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <f4otjc$j2...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > >> > >> >> >> > > Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he >> > > saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the >> > > something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him >> > > shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found >> > > (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the >> > > testimony would likely be ignored. >> > >> > Let's try again: >> > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment >> > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The >> > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The >> > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: >> > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The >> > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The >> > body of the woman is found. >> > >> > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would >> > >> > Jason >> >> Jason, Jason: >> You are establishing an analogy with a court trial that is a wrong >> one. >> In general the cases studied in a trial are rather common criminal >> cases. >> In those cases, the personal testimonies are heard. But this is not a >> guarantee that the declaration of the jury corresponds with the >> truth. It is only a practical mechanism for judging an accused. It >> is not a guarantee of anything. >> >> So, in the case of miracles, we need more than a simple jury. >> Extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary proves. And you have heard >> this many times in your life. But you do not care, for you are trying >> to fool others. >> I am begining to think that you are not honest, Jason. You are very >> good at positting your arguments, but they are worthless mostly. You >> have to know that. So you are playing the false prophet, Jason. A >> prophet that does not care for the truth of his words. >> Bramble > >Bramble, >You are leaving out an important issue--several different posters told me >that even if I produced info. about physical evidence that proved her leg >bone grew two inches--they still would not be convinced that God healed >her. > >I ask you Bramble--what good would it do for me to spend time visiting >websites in search of information about physical evidence? If you were in >my shoes, would you waste time finding evidence? > Jason, you are lying. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <Jason-1306071628360001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Bramble, > You are leaving out an important issue--several different posters told me > that even if I produced info. about physical evidence that proved her leg > bone grew two inches--they still would not be convinced that God healed > her. First off, you are lying again. Skeptics respond to evidence. If reliable evidence is produced of some claim, then the claim becomes more credible as a result... and skeptics will take a step toward being convinced of that claim. Second, you're mixing two things: 1. Whether the leg actually became longer, and 2. Whether some god or gods caused it to happen. (Built into this question is, of course, the question of whether any gods exist.) You believe both. At this point, you have provided reliable evidence of neither . Your second-hand testimony about a verbal claim given in a church is not reliable. Providing evidence for 1 is probably easier than providing evidence for 2. Actually, a THIRD question comes up. Even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, as hard as that will be, your next assignment would be to show evidence for the following claim: 3. That your Biblical god (named "God") was the god that caused it to happen. (Built into that claim, of course, is the claim that this particular god exists.) Got that? Can you see the need to walk us through the evidence for all three claims? Good luck with that. > I ask you Bramble I'm not Bramble, but.... >--what good would it do for me to spend time visiting > websites in search of information about physical evidence? Well, for one, you might learn something yourself. > If you were in my shoes, ....and with your malfunctioning sense of logic? > would you waste time finding evidence? What would make finding evidence a waste of time? Maybe you'd learn that there is none, and that you were wrong all along. Don't be afraid that learning such a thing could shake your faith in your god. I know that wouldn't happen. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 13, 11:07 pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > Martin, > > I don't believe the advocates of evolution are stupid or naive. Atheists > > believe there is no God > > WRONG. Robyn, do you actually think there is absolutely any hope of Jason understanding what you mean here? Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:40:35 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f4os4k$hl7$1@news04.infoave.net> : >Jason, what were you before you were a fertilized egg? A tape-worm. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:37:54 -0700, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: - Refer: <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g5i9@4ax.com> >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >>It's >>difficult not to think about sex when a young beautiful girl wearing a >>bathing suit walks in front of me. > >Could you elaborate on that? You'll have to clean up the mess. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:38:09 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: - Refer: <n06073t9g4o38v4drmh1hi81pgcaos1cjc@4ax.com> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:31:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>in message >>news:Jason-1206072004470001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <nocu63t7m5lckkpctjabhghvrbj10nrdap@4ax.com>, John Baker >>> <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>snip >>> >>> Would you like for me to post her testimony again. She stated that she >>> watched her leg bone grow two inches? >> >>Go ahead. It still doesn't prove that this alleged incident was caused by a >>god. > >Or that it even happened. Jason has done nothing but lie, fabricate, falsify and confabulate in EVERY SINGLE post they he has vomited up. : -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:42:09 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5dahhkF347kf0U1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >snip >> Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil >> evidence. > >They have a fossil of your god? Cool. Got a cite for that? In that esteemed Science Journal "The Watchtower"! -- Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.